9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the production floor and further found that these goods had not been accounted for in their RG-I register. Believing that the goods were liable to confiscation, the officers seized the goods but released the same provisionally to the party. A show cause notice was issued later on by the department to the appellants for confiscating the seized goods under Rule 173Q for alleged contravention of Rules 53 and 173G, and for imposing penalty on the party under the same provisions. The proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the Additional Commissioner held the goods liable to confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the party under Rule 173Q for contravention of Rules 53, 173Q and 226. In the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the cited case, it has been held that, in a composite case of contravention of Rules 53 and 173Q, only Clause (d) of Rule 173Q(1) could be invoked and further that, for invoking the said clause (d), a finding of mens rea was a sine qua non. In the instant case, submits ld. Counsel, there is no such finding and hence the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q for alleged contravention of Rules 53 and 173G cannot be sustained. Ld. Counsel further points out that the ratio of the decision in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. has been consistently followed by this Tribunal in subsequent similar cases as well, a few of which has been cited as under :- (1) United Phosphorus Ltd. Ors. v. CCE, Surat-II [2001 (133) E.L.T. 691 (T) = 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the RG-I register in terms of above mentioned Trade Notice dated 4-4-94. The DR has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. [ 2002 (142) E.L.T. 279 (S.C.)]. 4. I have examined the submissions. The show cause notice has alleged that the assessee has indulged in non-accountal of fully manufactured goods in RG-I with intent to evade payment of duty. This allegation has been denied by the assessee in their reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Rule 173Q for contravention found under Rules 53, 173G and 226. This decision has been upheld by the lower appellate authority. Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the department in any form whatsoever. It has been further submitted by ld. Counsel that, in the past, the appellants have entered only packed reels of paper and packed sheets of paper board in RG-I register and there has not been any objection from the department. It has further been pointed out by ld. Counsel that, as early as in November, 1992 they had written to the Range Superintendent of Central Excise that they would be accounting only fully packed goods in their RG-I but there has been no objection from the Superintendent or any other officer of the department even thereafter. In relation to these submissions of the counsel, I find that the adjudicating authority has taken note of these matters but has not given any finding in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
